Search

Objective: Intra-operative blood loss is a significant complication of major lower limb amputation (MLLA). This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effect of tourniquet use on patients undergoing amputation., Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2024., Review Methods: Inclusion criteria were any study design assessing MLLA with and without tourniquet use. Primary outcomes were peri-operative blood loss and transfusion requirements. Secondary outcomes were operative duration, surgical site infection, stump revision, and mortality. Articles were screened and data extracted independently by two reviewers, then pooled using random effects meta-analysis, and presented with their GRADE certainty. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and Cochrane RoB 2 tools., Results: Seven studies (one randomised controlled trial [RCT] and six cohort studies) were included, totalling 1 018 limbs (412 tourniquet, 606 non-tourniquet). Intra-operative blood loss was lower with tourniquet use (mean difference [MD] -192.09 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -291.67 - -92.52; p < .001); however, there was no significant difference in total blood loss measured over the first three to four post-operative days (MD -254.66 mL; 95% CI -568.12 - 58.80; p = .11). Post-operative haemoglobin drop was lower for tourniquet patients (MD -0.55 g/dL; 95% CI -0.80 - -0.31; p < .001). The odds ratio (OR) for requiring blood transfusion was 0.65 (95% CI 0.38 - 1.11; p = .11) for tourniquet vs. non-tourniquet patients, with no significant difference in the number of units transfused per patient (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.72 - 0.03; p = .070). Operation duration was shorter with tourniquet use (MD -8.69 minutes, 95% CI -15.95 - -1.42; p = .020). There was no significant difference in rates of surgical site infection (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 - 1.90; p = .82), stump revision (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 - 1.16; p = .17), or death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 - 1.30; p = .36). GRADE certainty was low or very low for all outcomes., Conclusion: Tourniquet use may be associated with reduced post-operative haemoglobin drop and operative duration, without negative consequences on stump infection, revision, and mortality. However, most data are observational. Further RCTs are needed to generate higher quality evidence., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Rehabilitation experiences of lower limb amputees with poorer physical health have not been fully explored. This study aimed to qualitatively explore experiences of rehabilitation amongst patients who had recently undergone amputation due to complications of vascular disease., Methods: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 patients participating in the PLACEMENT randomised controlled feasibility trial (ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37), which investigated the effectiveness of using a perineural catheter for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. Framework analysis was used to identify key themes and compare participant data., Findings: Three main themes and corresponding sub-themes were identified: (i) other patients as inspiration; (ii) other patients as competition; and (iii) imagined futures. Perceptions relating to other patients played a key role in rehabilitation, providing a source of motivation, support, and competition. Participants' imagined futures were uncertain, and this was compounded by a lack of information and delays in equipment and/or adaptations., Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of fellow patients in supporting rehabilitation following lower limb amputation. Enabling contact with other patients should thus be a key consideration when planning rehabilitation. There is a clear unmet need for realistic information relating to post-amputation recovery, tailored to the needs of individual patients.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) following major lower limb amputation (MLLA) in vascular patients are a major source of morbidity. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of SSI following MLLA in vascular patients. This review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023460645). Databases were searched without date restriction using a pre-defined search strategy. The search identified 1427 articles. Four RCTs and 21 observational studies, reporting on 50 370 MLLAs, were included. Overall SSI incidence per MLLA incision was 7.2% (3628/50370). The incidence of SSI in patients undergoing through-knee amputation (12.9%) and below-knee amputation (7.5%) was higher than the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing above-knee amputation, (3.9%), p < 0.001. The incidence of SSI in studies focusing on patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), diabetes or including patients with both was 8.9%, 6.8% and 7.2%, respectively. SSI is a common complication following MLLA in vascular patients. There is a higher incidence of SSI associated with more distal amputation levels. The reported SSI incidence is similar between patients with underlying PAD and diabetes. Further studies are needed to understand the exact incidence of SSI in vascular patients and the factors which influence this., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: To investigate the effect of tourniquet use on outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) due to peripheral arterial disease or complications from diabetes mellitus., Methods: In this 2-center retrospective observational study, vascular patients who underwent MLLA between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020 at 2 UK hospitals were identified using operating theater databases. Hospital databases were used to access medical records, operation notes, and laboratory reports. The use of a tourniquet in each MLLA was noted. The primary outcome was postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) drop (g/L). Secondary outcomes were units of allogeneic blood transfused perioperatively, 90-day revision rates, 90-day wound breakdown rates, surgical site infection (SSI) rates (at 30 days), and 90-day mortality. A follow-up index (a measure of follow-up completeness) was calculated for all 30-day and 90-day outcomes., Results: Four hundred seventy two patients underwent MLLA, of which 124 had a tourniquet applied. The median postoperative Hb drop was significantly lower in the tourniquet group compared to the nontourniquet group (13 [interquartile range 5-22] g/L vs. 20 [interquartile range 11-28] g/L; P ≤ 0.001). Thirty three point one percent (41) of tourniquet patients received a blood transfusion perioperatively, compared to 35.6% (124) of nontourniquet patients (P = 0.82). Sixteen percent (76) of patients required surgical revision within 90 days, with no significant difference between the tourniquet and nontourniquet group (20.2% tourniquet vs. 14.7% no tourniquet; P = 0.15). SSI rates (12.0% tourniquet vs. 10.6% no tourniquet, P = 0.66) and 90-day mortality (6.5% tourniquet vs. 10.1% no tourniquet; P = 0.23) were similar. Multivariable regression demonstrated that tourniquet use was independently associated with a reduced hemoglobin drop (β = -4.671, 95% confidence interval -7.51 to -1.83, P ≤ 0.001) but was not associated with wound breakdown, revision surgery, or SSI. Hypertension, SSI, and below-knee amputation using the skew flap technique were all significant predictors of revision surgery. All follow-up indices were ≥ 0.97., Conclusions: Tourniquet use in MLLA was associated with a significantly lower fall in postoperative Hb without evidence of harm in terms of SSI, wound breakdown/revision rates, or mortality., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation., Methods: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools., Results: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals., Conclusion: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Background: Through-knee amputation (TKA) carries potential biomechanical advantages over above knee amputation (AKA) in patients unsuitable for a below-knee amputation. However, concerns regarding prosthetic fit, cosmesis and wound healing have tempered enthusiasm for the operation. Furthermore, there are many described surgical techniques for performing a TKA. This frustrates attempts to compare past and future comparative data, limiting the opportunity to identify which procedure is associated with the best patient centered outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to identify all the recognized operative TKA techniques described in the literature and to develop a clear descriptive system to support future research in this area., Methods: A systematic review was performed, searching the OVID, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases, according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Papers of any design were included if they described an operative technique for a TKA. Key operative descriptions were captured and used to design a classification system for surgical techniques., Results: A total of 906 papers were identified, of which 28 are included. The most important distinctions in operative technique were the level of division of the femur (disarticulation without bone division, transcondylar amputation, with or without shaving of the medial, lateral, and posterior condyles and supracondylar amputation), management of the patella (kept whole, partially preserved, completely removed), use of a muscular gastrocnaemius flap, and skin incisions. A 4-component classification system was developed to be able to describe TKA operative techniques. A suggested shorthand nomenclature uses the first letter of each component (FPMS; Femur, Patella, Muscular flap, Skin incision), followed by a number, to describe the operation. Patient outcomes were poorly reported, and therefore outcomes for different types of TKA are not addressed in this review., Conclusions: A novel descriptive system for describing different techniques for performing a TKA has been developed. This classification system will help in reporting, comparing, and interpreting past and future studies of patients undergoing TKA., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery., Methods: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance., Results: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679)., Conclusion: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Major Lower Limb Amputation (MLLA) is associated with significant peri- and post-operative pain and has been identified as a research priority by patient and healthcare groups. The PReliMinAry survey was designed to evaluate existing MLLA analgesia strategies; identifying areas of equipoise and informing future research., Methods: A targeted multi-national, multi-disciplinary survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey® (October 5, 2020-November 3, 2020) and advertised via social media and society email lists. The 10-questions explored 'pain-team' services, pre-operative neuroleptic medication, pre-incision peripheral nerve blocks and catheters, surgically placed nerve catheters, post-operative adjunctive regimens, future research engagement and equipoise., Results: Seventy-six responses were received from 60 hospitals worldwide. Twelve hospitals(20%) had a dedicated MLLA pain team, 7(12%) had none. Most pain teams (n = 52; 87%) assessed pain with a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Over half of respondents "never" preloaded patients with oral neuroleptic agents(n= 42/76; 55%). Forty-seven hospitals(78%) utilized patient controlled opioid analgesia. Most hospitals are able to provide pre-incision loco-regional peripheral nerve blocks, nerve catheters and surgical nerve catheters (95%, 77%, and 90% respectively), but use was variable. Ultrasound(US) guided peripheral nerve catheters were "infrequently" or "never" used in 57% of hospitals, whilst 23% "infrequently" or "never" utilize surgically placed nerve catheters., Conclusions: The survey revealed a preference towards 'single-shot' nerve blocks and surgical catheters. A difference between the use of US guided nerve catheters and those surgically placed likely reflects the difference of literature evaluating these techniques. Most respondents felt there was equipoise surrounding future trials evaluating nerve blocks/catheters, but less so for surgical catheters., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation., Methods and Analysis: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10-15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10-15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2-4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explore patient experiences, understanding and perceptions of analgesia following major lower limb amputation., Design: Qualitative interview study, conducted as part of a randomised controlled feasibility trial., Setting: Participants were recruited from two general hospitals in South Wales., Participants: Interview participants were patients enrolled in PLACEMENT (Perineural Local Anaesthetic Catheter aftEr Major lowEr limb amputatioN Trial): a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing the use of perineural catheter (PNC) versus standard care for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. PLACEMENT participants who completed 5-day postoperative follow-up, were able and willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, and had consented to be contacted, were eligible to take part in the qualitative study. A total of 20 interviews were conducted with 14 participants: 10 male and 4 female., Methods: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants over two time points: (1) up to 1 month and (2) at least 6 months following amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach., Results: Interviews revealed unanticipated benefits of PNC usage for postoperative pain relief. Participants valued the localised and continuous nature of this mode of analgesia in comparison to opioids. Concerns about opioid dependence and side effects of pain relief medication were raised by participants in both treatment groups, with some reporting trying to limit their intake of analgesics., Conclusions: Findings suggest routine placement of a PNC following major lower limb amputation could reduce postoperative pain, particularly for patient groups at risk of postoperative delirium. This method of analgesic delivery also has the potential to reduce preoperative anxiety, alleviate the burden of pain management and minimise opioid use. Future research could further examine the comparison between patient-controlled analgesia and continuous analgesia in relation to patient anxiety and satisfaction with pain management., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals' predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools., Method: This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals' accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively., Study Registration and Dissemination: This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Objective: Controlling pain after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is of critical importance to patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of perineural catheters (PNCs) on post-operative pain, post-operative morphine requirement, in-hospital mortality, long term phantom limb pain, and chronic stump pain., Methods: A systematic review using PubMed, EMBASE via OVID and the Cochrane library from database inception (1946) to 20 October 2020 was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies involving patients undergoing MLLA which reported on post-operative morphine requirement, pain scores, in-hospital mortality, phantom limb pain (PLP), and chronic stump pain were included. Studies comparing PNC use with epidural or wound site local anaesthetic infusions were excluded. Outcome data were extracted from individual studies and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects (Mantel-Haenszel) model for dichotomous data using an odds ratio (OR) summary statistic with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and with an inverse variance random effects model for continuous data using a standardised mean difference (SMD) summary statistic with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses were performed for post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirement. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black score, and outcomes were assessed using the GRADE tool., Results: Ten studies reporting on 731 patients were included, with 350 patients receiving a PNC and 381 receiving standard care. PNC use is associated with a reduction in post-operative pain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 - -0.01, p = .040, I 2  = 54%, GRADE quality of evidence: low) and post-operative morphine requirements (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.03 - -0.23, p = .002, I 2  = 75%, GRADE quality of evidence: moderate), although the effect of PNC on reduced post-operative morphine requirements is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only (p = .40). No demonstrable effect was found on in-hospital mortality, PLP, or chronic stump pain (GRADE quality of evidence: low)., Conclusion: PNC use in amputees is associated with a significant reduction in post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirements, although this latter finding is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The decision to undertake a major lower limb amputation can be complex. This review evaluates the performance of risk prediction tools in estimating mortality, morbidity, and other outcomes following amputation., Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies reporting on risk prediction tools that predict outcomes following amputation. Outcome measures included the accuracy of the risk tool in predicting a range of post-operative complications, including mortality (both short and long term), peri-operative morbidity, need for re-amputation, and ambulation success. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis In Systematic Reviews., Results: The search identified 518 database records. Twelve observational studies, evaluating 13 risk prediction tools in a total cohort of 61 099 amputations, were included. One study performed external validation of an existing risk prediction tool, while all other studies developed novel tools or modified pre-existing generic calculators. Two studies conducted external validation of the novel/modified tools. Nine tools provided risk estimations for mortality, two tools provided predictions for post-operative morbidity, two for likelihood of ambulation, and one for re-amputation to the same or higher level. Most mortality prediction tools demonstrated acceptable discrimination performance with C statistic values ranging from 0.65 to 0.81. Tools estimating the risk of post-operative complications (0.65 - 0.74) and necessity for re-amputation (0.72) also performed acceptably. The Blatchford Allman Russell tool demonstrated outstanding discrimination for predicting functional mobility outcomes post-amputation (0.94). Overall, most studies were at high risk of bias with poor external validity., Conclusion: This review identified several risk prediction tools that demonstrate acceptable to outstanding discrimination for objectively predicting an array of important post-operative outcomes. However, the methodological quality of some studies was poor, external validation studies are generally lacking, and there are no tools predicting other important outcomes, especially quality of life., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Daniel Norvell and Joseph Czerniecki were involved in the development of the AMPREDICT tools,(18)(,)(22)(,)(26) and Christopher Twine and Emma Thomas-Jones developed UKAmpRisk.(23) Ryan A. Preece, Nafi Dilaver, Cherry-Ann Waldron, Philip Pallmann, Emma Thomas-Jones, Brenig L. Gwilym, Christopher P. Twine, and David C. Bosanquet are currently part of the team running PERCEIVE.(33), (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Every year, thousands of patients with peripheral vascular disease undergo major lower limb amputation. Despite this, evidence for optimal management is weak. Core outcome sets capture consensus on the most important outcomes for a patient group to improve the consistency and quality of research. The aim was to define short and medium term core outcome sets for studies involving patients undergoing major lower limb amputation., Methods: A systematic review of the literature and focus groups involving patients, carers, and healthcare professionals were used to derive a list of potential outcomes. Findings informed a three round online Delphi consensus process, where outcomes were rated for both short and medium term studies. The results of the Delphi process were discussed at a face to face consensus meeting, and recommendations were made for each core outcome set., Results: A systematic review revealed 45 themes to carry forward to the consensus survey. These were supplemented by a further five from focus groups. The consensus survey received responses from 123 participants in round one, and 91 individuals completed all three rounds. In the final round, nine outcomes were rated as "core" for short term studies and a further nine for medium term studies. Wound infection and healing were rated as "core" for both short and medium term studies. Outcomes related to mortality, quality of life, communication, and additional healthcare needs were also rated as "core" for short term studies. In medium term studies, outcomes related to quality of life, mobility, and social integration/independence were rated as "core". The face to face stakeholder meeting ratified inclusion of all outcomes from the Delphi and suggested that deterioration of the other leg and psychological morbidity should also be reported for both short and medium term studies., Conclusion: Consensus was established on 11 core outcomes for short and medium term studies. It is recommended that all future studies involving patients undergoing major lower limb amputation should report these outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare outcomes between long posterior flap (LPF) and skew flap (SF) amputation over a 13 year period., Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing a LPF or SF below knee amputation (BKA) over a 13 year period at one hospital were identified. Both techniques were performed regularly, depending on tissue loss and surgeon preference. The primary outcome was surgical revision of any kind. Secondary outcomes included revision to above knee amputation (AKA), length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality. A smaller cohort of patients who were alive and unilateral below knee amputees were contacted to ascertain prosthetic use and functional status., Results: In total, 242 BKAs were performed in 212 patients (125 LPF and 117 SF; median follow up 25.8 months). Outcomes for the two groups were equivalent for surgical revision of any kind (27 LPF vs. 31 SF; p = .37), revision to an AKA (18 LPF vs. 14 SF; p = .58), LOS (29 days for LPF vs. 28 days for SF; p = .83), and median survival (23.9 months for LPF vs. 28.8 months for SF; p = .89). Multivariable analysis found amputation type had no effect on any outcome. Functional scores from a smaller cohort of 40 unilateral amputees who were contactable demonstrated improved outcomes with the LPF vs. the SF (p = .038)., Conclusion: Both techniques appear equivalent for rates of surgical residual limb failure. Functional outcomes may be better with the LPF., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled effectiveness trial evaluating the use of a perineural catheter (PNC) after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain as the primary outcome., Design: Randomised controlled feasibility trial., Setting: Two vascular Centres in South Wales, UK., Participants: 50 patients scheduled for major lower limb amputation (below or above knee) for complications of peripheral vascular disease., Interventions: The treatment arm received a PNC placed adjacent to the sciatic or tibial nerve at the time of surgery, with continuous infusion of levobupivacaine hydrochloride 0.125% for up to 5 days. The control arm received neither local anaesthetic nor PNC. Both arms received usual perioperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients who were randomised and the proportion of recruited patients who provided primary effectiveness outcome data. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of recruited patients reaching 2 and 6 month follow-up and supplying pain data; identification of key cost drivers; development of an economic analysis framework for a future effectiveness trial; identification of barriers to recruitment and site set-up; and identification of the best way to measure postoperative pain., Results: Seventy-six of 103 screened patients were deemed eligible over a 10 month period. Fifty (64.5%) of these patients were randomised, with one excluded in the perioperative period. Forty-five (91.3%) of 49 recruited patients provided enough pain scores on a 4-point verbal rating scale to allow primary effectiveness outcome evaluation. Attrition rates were high; 18 patients supplied data at 6 month follow-up. Costs were dominated by length of hospital stay. Patients and healthcare professionals reported that trial processes were acceptable., Conclusions: Recruitment of patients into a trial comparing PNC use to usual care after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain measured on a 4-point verbal rating scale is feasible. Evaluation of longer-term symptoms is difficult., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN: 85 710 690. EudraCT: 2016-003544-37., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pain after major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a significant problem. A perineural catheter (PNC) can be placed adjacent to the major nerve at the time of amputation with a continuous local anaesthetic infusion given postoperatively to try and reduce pain. Although low-quality observational data suggest that PNC usage reduces postoperative opioid requirements, there are limited data regarding its effect on pain. The aim of PLACEMENT is to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial to assess the impact of a PNC with continuous local anaesthetic infusion, inserted at the time of amputation, on short and medium-term postoperative outcomes., Methods/design: Fifty patients undergoing a major lower limb amputation (below or above the knee) for PAD will be recruited from two centres. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard postoperative analgesia, with or without insertion of a PNC and local anaesthetic infusion for the first 5 postoperative days. Outcome data will be captured for the first 5 days, including pain scores (primary outcome, captured three times a day), opioid use, nausea or vomiting, itching, dizziness and complications. Patients will be contacted 2 and 6 months after surgery to assess quality of life, phantom limb pain, chronic stump pain and total healthcare costs. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with at least 10 patients (dependent on saturation of analytic themes on preliminary coding) purposefully sampled to achieve variation in site and study arm. Interviews will explore patients' perception of post-amputation pain and its treatment, and experience of study processes. Semi-structured interviews with 5-10 health professionals will explore feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability of the study. Data from this pilot will be used to assess feasibility of, and estimate parameters to calculate the sample size for an effectiveness trial. Full ethical approval has been granted (Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 16/WA/0353)., Discussion: PLACEMENT will be the first study to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial on PNC usage for postoperative pain in amputees, and provide parameters to calculate the appropriate sample size for this study., Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN85710690 . Registered on 21 October 2016. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2016-003544-37. Registered on 24 August 2016.

Background: The development of a standardised reporting set is important to ensure that research is directed towards the most important outcomes and that data is comparable. To ensure validity, the set must be agreed by a consensus of stakeholders including patients, healthcare professionals and lay representatives. There is currently no agreed core outcome set for patients undergoing major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for either short- or medium-term research outcomes. By developing these sets we aim to rationalise future trial outcomes, facilitate meta-analysis and improve the quality and applicability of amputation research., Methods/design: We will undertake a comprehensive systematic review of studies of patients undergoing major lower limb amputation for PAD. Data regarding all primary and secondary outcomes reported in relevant studies will be extracted and summarised as outcome domains. We will then undertake focus groups with key stakeholders (patients, carers, health and social care workers) to collect qualitative data to identify the main short- and medium-term research outcomes for patients undergoing major lower limb amputation. Results of the systematic review and focus groups will be combined to create a comprehensive list of potential key outcomes. Stakeholders (patients, researchers and health and social care workers) will then be polled to determine which of the outcomes are considered to be important in a general context using a three-phase Delphi process. After preliminary analysis, results will be presented at a face-to-face meeting of key stakeholders for discussion and voting on the final set of core outcomes. This project is being run in parallel with a feasibility trial assessing perineural catheters in patients undergoing lower limb amputation (the PLACEMENT trial). Full ethical approval has been granted for the study (Wales REC 3 reference number 16/WA/0353)., Discussion: Core outcome sets will be developed for short- and medium-term outcomes of research involving patients undergoing major lower limb amputation for PAD. This will help with the design of future trials and facilitate meta-analyses of trial data., Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42017059329 . Registered on 30 March 2017., Comet: 975 . Registered on 5 April 2017.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of using an intraoperatively placed perineural catheter (PNC) with a postoperative local anaesthetic infusion on immediate and long-term outcomes after lower limb amputation., Methods: A systematic review of key electronic journal databases was undertaken from inception to January 2015. Studies comparing PNC use with either a control, or no PNC, were included. Meta-analysis was performed for postoperative opioid use, pain scores, mortality, and long-term incidence of stump and phantom limb pain. Sensitivity analysis was performed for opioid use. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system., Results: Seven studies reporting on 416 patients undergoing lower limb amputation with PNC usage (n = 199) or not (n = 217) were included. Approximately 60% were transtibial amputations PNC use reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised mean difference: -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.07, p = .03), maintained on sensitivity analysis for large (p = .03) and high-quality (p = .003) studies, but was marginally lost (p = .06) on studies enrolling patients with peripheral arterial disease only. PNC treatment did not affect postoperative pain scores (p = .48), in-hospital mortality (p = .77), phantom limb pain (p = .28) or stump pain (p = .37). GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low., Conclusion: There is poor-quality evidence that PNC usage significantly reduces opioid consumption following lower limb amputation, without affecting other short- or long-term outcomes. Well-performed randomised studies are required., (Copyright © 2015 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)